- 6 -
in Stoughton, traveled to Chicago, met the band, traveled to
another Midwestern city, and spent Sunday night playing at a
nightclub in Chicago.
The band had its base of operations in Chicago. The band
played almost every Sunday night in Chicago at the same venue.
It played the other weekend nights at engagements in the Chicago
area. When the band traveled to another Midwestern city on a
weekend, it did so from Chicago. We also note that when the band
did travel, it paid for petitioner’s travel between Chicago and
the engagement city–-not between Stoughton and Chicago. The band
also paid for petitioner’s hotel room in other Midwestern cities,
but did not pay for petitioner’s hotel room while in Chicago.3
In attempting to show that Chicago was not his tax home,
petitioner contends that because the band played in several
Midwestern cities, he did not receive the greater portion of his
income from his Chicago engagements. While the band did play in
Midwestern cities other than Chicago, the record reflects that
the majority of the band’s engagements was in Chicago venues.
Accordingly, we find that petitioner did not receive the greater
portion of his income from other Midwestern cities. Petitioner’s
tax home was Chicago, and therefore, he is not allowed to deduct
3 Petitioner, for the first time in his posttrial brief,
contends that he worked during the week out of his home in
Stoughton as the band’s road manager at a rate of $50 per
engagement. These facts do not appear in the record and are
untimely raised. See Estate of Horvath v. Commissioner, 59 T.C.
551, 555 (1973).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011